Owning Time Warner would allow Apple to expand the idea of Apple TV services. Maybe I am wrong but owning a cable provider could have its advantages. I would much rather want Apple to own Time Warner and see what it could do with it then have Comcast destroy it. Comcast is the worst provider ever IMO. But that is another entire story.

Owning Time Warner would allow Apple to expand the idea of Apple TV services.

And Apple can’t do that without them? Why would the other media companies want to contract with someone who owns their own company and who would obviously give preferential treatment thereto? We’ve seen this before.

I disagree with you. History has shown that technology changes and it changes quickly as time has progressed. We have now had 6 plus years of the device era. Steve Jobs has been quoted as saying that the industry "changes" every 10 years and I tend to agree with him. in '76 the Apple I. In 84 the mac and the gui. In 94' the world wide web. In 2004 the proliferation of the cell phone and beginngs of the smart phone. Yes more idevices will come in the next few years but Apple should not place themselves in a disadvantageous place. One day we will wake up by a world that is dominated by Google because think in such broad terms outside the box. This is hugely different then the boxed in and limited apple ecosystem. There is just not that much growth in the long run and who know if Apple will be able to lead the industry with the next great device. If they don't they will shrink as a company. If they think outside the box they have more of chance to dominate the industry and create growth influence. Apple has more money then anyone in the industry and should spend their money and take risks instead of Mr. Cook listening to Ichan and giving money away that has no effect on the stock price. Ichan only pushed for the dividend and buy back for his own stake.

Personlly I think Apple should look at buying Time Warner.

Who says they aren't thinking outside the box now?

As for TW, I don't think so. TW is a provider. Apple needs content and Apple doesn't want to be associated with poor service.

Any time you see anybody use the phrase "think outside the box", don't even bother....

But seriously, this shotgun (fragmentation grenade would be a better metaphor) approach of Google's is going to fail, and fail huge! I can't even figure out what most of this crap is supposed to be. Google Glass is never going to catch on, at least until it's completely unobtrusive to the outside observer (surgically implanted?) Apparently there's a small but vocal market segment that like being driven out of their minds with distractions and annoyances, but I can't see it as a mass-market phenomenon.

Driverless cars? Please! If you could wave a magic wand and replace every car on the road with a computer-controlled car on January 1, 2015, and 50,000 people were killed in cars under their own control in 2014, while in 2015 5 people were killed in automatic cars, it would be the crime of the millennium! Driverless cars would be outlawed immediately, and the designers would be put in jail. Na gah happen!

Most of the stuff Google is toying with isn't even that comprehensible. It isn't even science fiction. Really, they should get a panel of science fiction writers to come up with ideas—maybe they wouldn't work, but they'd make more sense than this stuff they've been coming up with. What they have is a bunch of aging techno-hipsters who think anything they can torture code into doing is worth doing, because—TECH! This is the philosophy that gave us Android.

Yes, most of Apple's eggs are in one basket. A diversity of products is Sammy's strength. Though I'm not sure what share of Sammy's profits come from smartphones or TVs or toasters or vacuum cleaners. (Or all-electric automobiles....)

or ships, or buildings, or even big lorries and earth movers. it is a very large company.

Couldnt agree more. Google is a model of laying down a foundation for the future. They invest in technologies that will one day become common place. These things are set in motion and some of them will hit big. (self driving cars for instance)

I think Apple needs to think more outside the box. Devices are not going to soley cut it as a future for a heavy technology company. Look at Microsoft as a company that didn't innovate and didn't take seriously the future of the technology. They got left behind. Could happen to Apple if the don't start to seriously consider the future of what the computer industry will mean 10 and 20 years from now.

Google's stock price in a large part reflects the future investments that they make. They are setting a that future looks like a sure way to become big some day. That's why investors like it so much and its price is driven so high. Take Amazon for instance. They are doing things that no one ever expected and their stock price high for that company.

Apples stock price reflects the future of the company.

Tesla for example stock price at 200, because investors see a big and bright profitable future on the next 5 to 10 years and beyond.

See my post above.

Saw your post, and disagree heartily. Apple's definition of success and yours are different. You need to accept that.

Google's market value ($404B USD) aligns with Wall Street's total domination principles. Google wants to be inside every home, every computer, every phone, every car, every bed, every neuron... because we are thinking about the technology that can make it happen. And it costs... NOTHING. " We sell Ads (Wall Street is just down from Madison avenue... Wall Street Knows Advertising), we sell personal information (Wall Street buys information on people), we sell dreams (Wall Street is all about selling the dream)."

In the end, Wall Street see everyone using google, and the inevitable monetization. how? Who knows? Sergei and Larry, they're smart, they'll figure something out.

Apple's ($474Bill USD) aligns with their value proposition. Value has is real... not potential. Apple is explicitly telling wall street, "We want to sell to 20% of the world, and make a profit commensurate with value" Wall Street has no concept of what 'real value is' but it knows how to sell sizzle.

Tesla's value (26B) is playing the regulation game. infinite gas mileage is valuable other car companies... Tesla will either be bought or become a leading car company because when regulation makes gasoline mileage requirements and emissions requirements approach infinity, Tesla has a product, and Evon is a 2 time winner (paypal and spaceX). But in 'value' again, selling $40,000 units will kill Tesla, especially with the requirement of a non-standard power cord like the iPad;-) In the end, Tesla is a not a good argument, because it's destined to be another Apple (or GE,Boeing... building amazing things, but only selling a few).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark

It's too long for my ADD. But I do note you don't know Apple at all. In recent history, Apple has always looked outside the box. It always is looking to skate to where the puck will be. You compare to Google, they are using a shotgun approach to research. None of these external projects have amounted to anything. They are mainly using them for PR. Meanwhile Apple is quietly doing what it does best: produce amazing products. It will release new products when it seems ready. Fuk the competition. Why are you so worried about them. They had years to dev and release new items but didn't until Apple showed them the way. Sure, one of them could produce the next great thing. But I'll always bet on Apple.

Here I disagree... Apple doesn't look outside the box... it looks to reinvent the box... little by little... and sometimes a lot...often laying down frameworks years in advance (another thing Wall Street doesn't understand). Apple sticks 64 bit into a cell phone... Once Apple does it, it's obvious that it effectively doubles the bus speed, until then, even experts doubted the need for 64bit until memory mapping requirements drove it. Why did apple put Gyros in a Phone? No Flash, No Java? No Way, the Industry screams! No one can build a tablet as nice as the iPad for under $1000, until Apple built it for $499.

The difference... the REAL difference is that Apple redefines the problem from 'How much can we do' (Microsoft Surface) 'To what is the problem, and what our our options to solve it, and pick one.... or pick none if it's not ready to fit into our other parameters [say battery life]' It's Pithy, but 'saying no' is the hardest part about design, because designers/engineers love to make up reasons to add something.

In the end, Apple is about making technology improve your life. It my not be technology in a little box in my hand... but it will be technology. The rest of the stuff Apple does (and remember, I'm the one saying Apple should become the Bank), is to make your life and the technology you use to improve it seamless... Case in point. iTMS. MP3 players sucked because you had to buy a CD, burn it, manage it in a file system, and sync it to your player. iTunes/iTMS cut out the 'go to the store, buy the CD'... It was point, click, drool easy to get legal music. Apple went through holy hell to get to you (and is still), but at the time... Apple became a music store... Outside of the Box? The same function was being performed, with about 10 less steps in about 3 hours less time.

That's why the TV content is a big deal. Especially the transition from the post 'cable' world. Only Apple, Google and Amazon can drive that change. Google attacked the cable companies... Apple... my guess is they will partner. I'm betting Apple will do the same with that partnership that it did with the wireless. (BTW, my wireless bill dropped 25% this month... Thank you Apple to make it purely a commodity bandwidth thing.... Can't wait for Apple to do the same thing with my home cable(fiber) bill.)

"And Samsung's lower-priced options proved more popular than the iPhone for those who earn $60,000 or less in the U.S." That sentence is WRONG. Do the math. According to NPD, there were 121m smartphones sold in the US. Apple sold 45%, of which 43% were sold to those with incomes under $60k, or 23.4m smartphones. Samsung sold 26%, of which 62% were sold to those with incomes under $60k, or 19.5m. Apple sold more smartphones than Samsung to those with incomes under $60k. And Apple is just about even with Samsung in smartphone sales to those with incomes under $30k - 11m for Samsung, 10.9m for Apple, or about 29% for each.

If you keep digging into NPD's release, it says the under-$30k market grew at "about double the overall market", so about 42% (or 2x21%). NPD also says Apple grew at 64% in this portion of the market. Working the numbers back, Apple grew from 25% to 29% of the under-$30k market. So this NPD statement "Apple has the opposite problem of gaining share in the fast growing entry-level market while still maintaining its position as the dominant supplier to affluent consumers" is also wrong. In 2013, Apple just showed that gaining share in the fast growing entry-level market is very much NOT a problem, at least in the US.

Edit: One last point. The whole market grew 21% or from 100m in 2012 to 121m in 2013. Apple went from 44m (44%) to 54.5m (45%). Apple accounted for half of all the growth (10.5m out of 21m) in the US smartphone market.Edited by mark2005 - 2/20/14 at 6:23pm

That's why the TV content is a big deal. Especially the transition from the post 'cable' world. Only Apple, Google and Amazon can drive that change. Google attacked the cable companies... Apple... my guess is they will partner. I'm betting Apple will do the same with that partnership that it did with the wireless. (BTW, my wireless bill dropped 25% this month... Thank you Apple to make it purely a commodity bandwidth thing.... Can't wait for Apple to do the same thing with my home cable(fiber) bill.)

Comparing a cell carrier to a cable company is asinine. The businesses are completely different. A cable company pays for the right to broadcast content and charges a user for the right to view it. A carrier has little or nothing to do with the content a user gets on their device. You wouldn't build a apartment complex and then allow someone else to rent the apartments and collect the rent for themselves.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

Comparing a cell carrier to a cable company is asinine. The businesses are completely different. A cable company pays for the right to broadcast content and charges a user for the right to view it. A carrier has little or nothing to do with the content a user gets on their device. You wouldn't build a apartment complex and then allow someone else to rent the apartments and collect the rent for themselves.

Funny how Apple is collecting the rent for the music labels, who build, market, promote and carry the risk of the 'apartment'... and then gives the labels 70%. I think you need to pick your examples better.

Where cable vs wireless IS different is the governmental monopolies put in place. What Apple doesn't have is the "if you don't pick us, your competitor will.' That's a tough row to hoe, but I think Apple WANTS google Fiber to get into municipalities, wants LTE bandwidth to increase with midi, and in some ways, wants torrenting to become widespread. Because then they can go in and tell cable companies... let us be your box, let us be your competitive advantage... because we work with LTE to the home, we work with Fiber, and we can work with you, and level the playing field. Let us keep your foot hold in delivery bandwidth, you can refocus on being a content creator (Charter... do you see what Comcast is doing?), and let us allow your content to be served up effectively to your consumer.... because that's the market you'll be competing against once your monopoly becomes a noose around your neck (you can't expand, and you don't have content to sell).

That will be the easy part of the equation... the hard part will be the network distribution licenses... waiting them out. Disney Corp will be the easiest, but not not easy. Comcast/NBC/Universal/(TWC) will be hard. Viacom is the swing vote. This is a 7-10 year transition, not unlike the music industry, and google and amazon are now fully aware and capable of competing.

And this is why the end to end experience is critical... The hardware has to make the software magical, lest it be no better than a cable clicker.

"And Samsung's lower-priced options proved more popular than the iPhone for those who earn $60,000 or less in the U.S." That sentence is WRONG. Do the math. According to NPD, there were 121m smartphones sold in the US. Apple sold 45%, of which 43% were sold to those with incomes under $60k, or 23.4m smartphones. Samsung sold 26%, of which 62% were sold to those with incomes under $60k, or 19.5m. Apple sold more smartphones than Samsung to those with incomes under $60k. And Apple is just about even with Samsung in smartphone sales to those with incomes under $30k - 11m for Samsung, 10.9m for Apple, or about 29% for each.

good catch. didn't look at the column totals equalling 100%, therefore making that transitory analysis possible (I glanced and thought the rows would total to 100%... presentation sneakiness to drive a false point).

One must remember that this is only 'smart phones' Samsung still sells 'feature phones,' where Apple does not. But every 2 years, the decisions comes into play of when does a person convert to a smartphone.

Apple is competitive in all $$ demographics in the U.S. a mature (high LTE penetration by all carriers, all carriers carrying Apple) market. One would assume that as all markets mature, Apple's distribution will align with this.